The CIA was on the job and ready to roll when it came time to overthrow a popularly elected leader in Iran to assist the interest of British Petroleum in Iran in 1953.
That same CIA was on the job to assist a future dictator named Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party gain power in Iraq. It was the days of the Cold War so the rationale was that the Communists in Iraq must go, and so a dictatorship steeped in blood was launched.
There came a time when the New World Order, a term used reverently by President George H.W. Bush, decided that it was time to take over Iraq's oil interest and so conflict was launched.
Can we suppose that U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie was just confused and making an independent blunder during that famous interview with Saddam Hussein when she said that an occupation of Kuwait on his part would be an "Arab-Arab" issue and not the concern of the United States? Had she talked to no one in the Bush Administration in advance?
After Saddam took Glaspie at her word and invaded Kuwait, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose son Mark had made a fortune in the arms business marketing tools of destruction to the highest bidders, loftily proclaimed along with Bush that aggression should not be allowed to stand. Suddenly the invasion was no longer an "Arab-Arab" issue.
How much focus was registered at the time on Saddam's stated reason for invading Kuwait? It was in response to Kuwaiti slant drilling of Iraqi oil. The Iraqi dictator had a legitimate case under international law and agreed to remove his troops from Kuwait if the Kuwaitis promised to stop stealing Iraq's oil.
Arab culture is such that a fig leaf of some kind is needed before a leader such as Saddam Hussein will agree to back down and remove troops. In this case the fig leaf would be consistent with a grievance sustainable under international law.
Secretary of State James Baker, who made a lucrative living as a Houston lawyer representing big oil, and a longstanding friend of fellow Houstonian oilman George Bush the Elder, proclaimed that in the interest of honor and righteousness Saddam must remove his troops from Iraq before the Iraqi leader could have his grievance heard.
Instead a war was fought and lives were needlessly lost. How many? U.S. accounts were silent on the issue and General Colin Powell stated bluntly when asked that question at a news conference that he was not interested in knowing the answer.
So one Bush left the Oval Office in January 1993 and another arrived eight years later. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was a major discussion point from the outset and had been a major topic of the influential neoconservative think tank-pressure group the Project for the New American Century, which had earlier brought pressure on President Bill Clinton to remove the Iraqi dictator from power.
By no coincidence, one of the PNAC's leading lights was Donald Rumsfeld. All he needed to do was bide his time until a neoconservative regime took power. With George W. Bush, or Bush the Younger, in power following a stolen election a full court press was launched to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Deceitful rationale was used to launch a war that was illegal under international law as well as the U.S. Constitution. After the 9/11 attacks it was alleged that there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. When that dissipated the next ploy was to state that, in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's words, a "giant mushroom cloud" threatened America through weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein.
PNAC advocate Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense, launched his massive aerial assault on Baghdad before a United Nations weapons inspection team could finish its report. The reason should be obvious to anyone willing to accept reality. There were no weapons and the inspection team headed by Hans Blix of Sweden would have duly reported this in due course.
Never let it be said that Vice President Dick Cheney could not serve two masters at the same time. While he sat one heartbeat removed from the presidency he also functioned on behalf of the Texas oil service corporation he headed, global giant Halliburton, by holding private hearings in his office attended by other corporate giants. The reason was to divide up Iraqi profits in advance.
So this was what happened when Saddam was removed. Now the target is Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's longtime dictator. Given the New World Order's ruthless past, what can we now expect when we are told that the U.S. and certain other major nations are interested in protecting the lives of the Libyan people?
Let us project back to that Gulf War when big oil brethren Bush I and Baker unleashed an assault on Saddam Hussein's forces on behalf of international honor. Bush had promised to assist the Kurds of Iraq's northern provinces if they would assist his effort against Saddam Hussein.